These are my thoughts and I do not claim that they are necessarily correct. Just think about them and reach your own decision.

I believe Thor:Ragnarok falls into that class of stories I call "mythic." Such stories start with a character who has a problem, that character gets transported to a fantastic world where they learn some key lesson and return from that fantastic world able to solve their problem. One of my favorite of such stories is The Forbidden Kingdom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnf3lV_r0oY

The characters in Skarros represent problems in Thor's real world. They are there to help prepare Thor for the big fight against Hela and to teach him to be a king. So, the real problems aren't Ragnarok, but what allows Ragnarok to happen; corruption, irresponsbility, cruelty, cowardice, avarice, etc. These are the things which make a story about Skarros actually a story about the end of Asgard.

That does help a bit, thank you. So you're saying it's not the pursuit of Ragnarok itself, but what Ragnarok broadly stands for... or "that which allows it to happen"? All all four perspectives are dealing with that inequity from their unique POV, yes?

I think a missing piece in all of these analyses is a basic, clear definition of what exactly the inequity is for any given story. I wish that was right up there at the top with the Narrative Argument. I understand that a complete story will offer 4 perspectives on any given inequity, but I don’t see examples of WHAT that inequity is, laid out in simple terms like:

So what inequity are all these four perspectives looking at? I can see how there the perspective of a “Missed Opportunity” vs. “Another Chance”, and that the substance of those perspectives is "Nightmares and Dreams" … but how is "Alien Threat" a perspective on that same inequity?

Is the INEQUITY an... unmatched negative force?

I guess I’m searching for an answer to WHAT the “apparently different and disparate inequity” is in a story. How, and WHERE are they connected on a deep, thematic level? Where does one literally see that in the story form?

Running with that, could it be said that: “In Alien, the inequity is an unmatched negative force”?

And going back to "Thor", what would it be for that?"In Thor, the inequity is that which allows something like Ragnorok to happen"?

I suggest that the overall "what the story is about" in Aliens is ability v. desire (the two crucial elements). The inequality refers to the fact that ability isn't up to desire and vice versa. Rippley's desire to be a mother isn't matched by her ability to until the climax where she runs into hell to save Newt. The corporation's desire to put a colony on the planet ends in disaster, though they very much wish they had the ability to do so.

" that which allows something like Ragnorok to happen" is not an inequality. It is only one half of an inequality. Without a storyform, I don't know what the other half of that inequality is, but I suspect it has something to do with Thor's heart and feelings.

"Peace of mind awaits those who stop charging in, even if it means failing to save something you love from destruction."

JohnDusenberry:

Jim's article describes the OS Physics problem as pursuit of preventing Ragnarok, but I’m struggling to see how characters like the Grandmaster are concerned with that. Or the Gladiators on Sakaar. Or Valkyrie. Or Hulk. Or Hela.It seems that most of the characters have no idea what’s going on with Ragnarok, until Thor informs them on his quest to stop it.

But once he does inform them, aren't they absolutely concerned with it? Everything that Thor is doing on Sakaar is about getting back to stop Ragnarok. From the point of view of the story, that makes Ragnarok everyone's problem.

Thor is the protagonist, so he's the one who's mostly pursuing the goal. But it concerns everyone else. Also, the Goal represents a specific instance of the OS Concern, but the Concern of Obtaining will be all over the story in other ways as well.

BTW the function of "pursue" in the protagonist is there in any story. This is separate from Pursue as the Overall Story Problem in this particular storyform. If you look, you'll see tons of examples in this story of how people recklessly pursuing things (not necessarily the story goal) causes problems. This happens until Thor realizes at that moment at the end that he must allow Ragnarok to happen (Avoid). (Meanwhile the Hulk is still smashing things).

But once he does inform them, aren't they absolutely concerned with it? Everything that Thor is doing on Sakaar is about getting back to stop Ragnarok. From the point of view of the story, that makes Ragnarok everyone's problem.

Not exactly. At least not literally. In fact, once they're told, they are all unified in NOT pursuing trying to stop Ragnarok. Each of them takes turns literally saying they couldn't care less about Ragnarok, and in the end, the only reason each of them go with Thor is for their own personal reasons completely unrelated to stopping Ragnarok. Maybe that's the key to this?

The film starts out with Thor learning that Ragnarok has already begun, and he commits himself to righting wrong because "that's what heroes do" (describing the MC problem?). I can still see that being an Activity, Thor being a Do-Er.

Odin tells Thor again that Ragnorok is coming, but that the real problem is his sister, Hela.

Hela shows up (an agent of the prophecy). Making her Thor's ANTAGONIST?

Meanwhile, Hela begins taking over Asgard with the intent to rule.

Grandmaster seems pretty safe/detached from Ragnarok (isn't Ragnarok a localized problem specific just to Asgard?) He makes fun of the very name of Asgard (Assberg) and sends Thor down to the Gladiators.

Thor does tells Valkyrie that Asgard is in danger, but she lets him know she couldn't care less, sends Thor to fight Hulk.

Thor tells Hulk about Ragnarok, and he too couldn't care less about it too.

Heimdall mentally "meets" with Thor and clues him in that they're at war with Hela (fighting Ragnarok). So he's concerned with Ragnarok--but so far the only one.

Again Thor tells Valkyrie about Ragnarok, and her response is that she's unwilling to get involved in another one of his family's squabbles. Basically saying it's not a concern to her at all whether or not to help Thor get back there--it's Thor and his family's problem. She urges him to avoid dealing with it, and he doesn't want to listen--blindly following the motto of "that's what heroes do."

Then, Hulk steps in to tell him to change to avoiding his MC problem too, and Hulk turns back into Banner and he too tells Thor he doesn't care about Thor's Ragnarok problem at all. He only agrees to go so he doesn't have to deal with HIS internal problem of being the Hulk.

After visiting her memories, Valkyrie agrees to help Thor to deal with HER internal problems, and they grab Loki and the Gladiator who also wants to go for his own personal reasons.

Thor returns to Asgard with his new crew and confronts Hela to stop her, and subsequently Ragnarok. They debate over which of their POVs is right and end up fighting, while the people Thor represents fight the creatures Hela represents. And she cuts out his eye.

Banner then resolves to avoid his personal problem with the Hulk to help in the fight, as does Loki.

Moments from death, Thor goes inside his mind again to speak with Odin, who lets him know it's okay to let Asgard die, that Asgard is an idea. This change in him enables Thor to unlock his true inner self, and he ultimately allows Ragnarok to happen, finding another way to save his people.

It does seem true that:

B_Newman:

The characters in Skarros represent [parts of Thor's problem]. They are there to help [him change].

Those characters are there to help with Thor's MC Problem. Whether or not to pursue or avoid fighting Ragnarok.

About halfway through the movie, most the other OS characters agree to help Thor with his MC Problem, but it's all for different personal reasons. Ragnarok itself still isn't their concern, it's their own internal reasoning to help Thor or not. Thor temporarily changes their minds.

It seems like the cast of the OS share the role of IC, convincing Thor to stop trying to protect Asgard. Hulk says it, Valkyrie says it, Hela says it, even Loki says it. In the end, he finally listens to their original advice, and as a result--saves his people.

So what inequity are all these four perspectives looking at? I can see how there the perspective of a “Missed Opportunity” vs. “Another Chance”, and that the substance of those perspectives is "Nightmares and Dreams" … but how is "Alien Threat" a perspective on that same inequity?

If you could answer this question, you wouldn't have to write a story.

There is NO ANSWER to the question "What is the inequity all four Throughlines are looking at".

The whole point of an inequity is that it is something that can't be described - it can only be approximated, or guessed at, by the four different perspectives.

Only when you have an account of all four are you able to assess the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the actions or decisions taken to resolve the inequity.

It sounds like you're asking "What is the inequity between the four quads that looks like each of these descriptions?" My understanding is that you don't look at the linchpin that connects the four quads at the corners to see what the problem is because a. you can't see it from any one perspective anyway and b. the inequity is an imbalance between elements. Instead, you should look at each of the four quads as holding hands to form one square to see a fuller picture of what the problem looks like. So the inequity that Aliens is looking at would be something like Missed Opportunity and Another Chance with Nightmares and Dreams during an Alien Threat. The whole thing describes (edit: to be more in line with Jim’s explanation, replace describes with approximates) the inequity.

Looks like Jim just posted something about this same thing, and it's much better put. What I have doesn't quite match what he's said so defer to his answer, of course, but maybe my illustrations are helpful anyway.

Ahh, I see. I got tripped up in all the references to "the inequity at hand" or that the "construct of a story presents four different perspectives on the same imbalance."

I had assumed "same imbalance" meant there was a singular, describable inequity that the author knew about.

But it's not even something the author can know? I guess I was thinking it's just the thing you don't physically say in the story. The whole give them 2+2 so they arrive at 4. 4 being the answer you argued about a specific inequity.

So the inequity that Aliens is looking at would be something like Missed Opportunity and Another Chance with Nightmares and Dreams during an Alien Threat. The whole thing describes the inequity.

This explanation is actually the closest thing to understanding this that I've seen explained so far. @jhull is that right?

In the article about Blade Runner 2049, "The purpose of these Throughlines, therefore, is to offer different ways to see the same inequity. The storyform that develops from these perspectives presents a single approach towards resolving that fundamental inequity.In Blade Runner:2049, that inequity is birth."

That line about "birth" was the thing I thought was the inequity, and omitted detail from the other articles/storyforms.How does this work?

So how does this work with the overall theory that a narrative argument provides an author's proof? The whole, "I have special knowledge about a particular problem, and I'm gonna argue to you that this is the best way to solve it."?

Let's say we're building a new hospital downtown. We have to design it and we have to prove that it is the best design. But, there are a stupendous amount of variables to consider involving everything from economic projections of the city's finances to population growth in different parts of the city to laws and laws which might be passed in the next couple of years to mechanical and electrical demands of the building (and mutiple power supply stations throuhout the city). floodplains, traffic patterns, restaurants, and on and on and on. We have to look at a huge number of dynamics in order to decide on which proposal is best. For that reason, even if we know that one proposal is the best, we can't just put why it is into an easy to read essay. We have to write on multiple levels across multiple dimensions, with multiple trade-offs.A story is like that. The reason why it argues what it does requires critical reading and sensitivity to multiple dimensions and trade-offs.

It looks like everyone has given good answers on your main question of the inequity -- I realize the Story Goal is kind a side question here, but I just wanted to clarify as I understand it (DSEs can correct me if I'm wrong):

JohnDusenberry:

In fact, once they're told, they are all unified in NOT pursuing trying to stop Ragnarok.

"Concern" here doesn't mean everyone is in favor of the goal or striving for it, or is even necessarily aware of it. They might disagree with the goal, they might disagree on how to pursue the goal, they might be opposed to it, they might be in denial about it. But they all have some functional story relationship to it, even if it's just hindering the pursuit of it (e.g. the grandmaster).

JohnDusenberry:

It seems like the cast of the OS share the role of IC, convincing Thor to stop trying to protect Asgard.

I've noticed that this does seem to happen a fair amount -- you have one "main" IC (in this case Valkerie I think) with other players taking on the IC perspective at different points.

Putting this all in simple terms:- MC is in the POV of being (to pull an analogy from another thread @B_Newman ) stuck behind a wall.- The OS characters have the POV to not take action “moving the stone” from point A to B to C.- The RS POV is a debate over why and whether or not to even attempt escaping the wall to move the stone.- And the IC is specifically of the POV MC shouldn’t escape and to move the stone.

MC is about the personal issues that belong to no one else. In this case, problematic Situation of being the rightful heir to Asgaard.

OS is about preventing the destruction (reverse Obtaining) of Asgaard.

IC presents the "Fixed Mindset" perspective (e.g., I don't care what you say, I'm done with Asgaard, etc. - Valkerie). She doesn't have to actually say, "you should forget about Asgaard too," -- but just by virtue of who she is, she is presenting this position.

RS is about the Psychology of the relationship between Thor and Valkerie. What is the nature of this relationship? What is it becoming? How do we conceive of it?

Again, I should qualify I'm not a DSE so someone else might be able to better clarify.

Thanks Chris. I believe it's starting to click. While I understand the way the storyform functions, I don't understand how the storyform can define and reveal the inequity when no one, not even the author, knows or says what the inequity is.

How does the storyform define something if there's no definition?

How does an author determine what inequity they're showcasing?

Is there an easy analogy to help "get it"?

I think I was confused by something in one of the breakdown articles about the new Bladerunner:"The purpose of these Throughlines, therefore, is to offer different ways to see the same inequity. The storyform that develops from these perspectives presents a single approach towards resolving that fundamental inequity.In Blade Runner: 2049, that inequity is birth."

That last line led me to think one could define exactly what the inequity is in a single term, and I started searching for/wondering what they were in other stories.

From an old article with some outdated ideas (the article itself stated this), but everything I’ve seen still points in this direction:

At the most basic level, we have Mind and we have Universe, as indicated in the introduction to this book. An inequity is not caused solely by one or the other but by the difference between the two. So, an inequity is neither in Mind nor Universe, but between them.

How does the storyform define something if there's no definition?How does an author determine what inequity they're showcasing?

You can define something by surrounding it with known items, like a fence can define a property or a serial of points can define a shape, even though you'd never be able to determine the shape from any one of the points.

The author determines the inequity by the storyforming choices the author makes.